The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Religion is an idea. Democracy is an expression > Comments

Religion is an idea. Democracy is an expression : Comments

By Richard Laidlaw, published 13/8/2008

The idea that you can brand members of a religion as 'a problem', because of their faith, is a monstrous negation of humanity.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
"Does it really matter if Muslims believe Mohammed is infallible, based on their core religious belief that the Prophet (Blessings be upon Him) gave only the immutable word of God in his teachings?"

My neighbour has a dog which barks. I point out that barking dogs are a nuisance. He agrees completely, but does nothing.

I invite the police to inspect the dog. They give my neighbour a warning. He accepts the warning, but does nothing.

I bring an expensive court case. My neighbour attends and is found to be negligent. He agrees to pay the court costs and to have the dog put down, but does nothing.

At length I confront him, and he explains that he has been told the dog must be allowed to bark by means of undetectable supernatural messages which take precedence over everything else, even his own life or mine. I am not privy to the messages, but he believes them so totally that if I try to stop the dog barking he will kill me without a qualm.

This is the problem with religion: once you grant people a licence to behave irrationally you can no longer safely criticise or bring sanctions against them for doing so. Nor can you consistently recommend logical decision making and rational behaviour. Richard Dawkins can explain why Osama bin Laden is evil. Peter Jensen, Rowan Williams and the Pope can't.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 10:20:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"...Islam as a system of ideas is incompatible with liberal democracy as a system of ideas,"

Hirshi Ali is correct.

Richard Laidlaw who lives in Bali appears to be either blind or have become an Islamist apologists. Muslims in Indonesia have become increasingly more Muslim and abandoning their ethnic Malay culture of being friendly, patient and diligent. They are killing non-Muslims and trying to impose the rule of Shariah, after having been cheated by the Western organisation of the World Bank and the IMF.

The Indonesian Muslims (inspired by Arabs and Pakistanis) have persecuted the Ahmadiyya Muslim community and even called for them to be banned.
http://www.thepersecution.org/world/indonesia/08/08/reu04.html
Posted by Philip Tang, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 10:28:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Islam isn't incompatible with democracy but it is incompatible with barbarism. It is similar to Secular humanism where life is not held in high regard. At least Islam is honest about its hate while secularist who slaughter the unborn try and dress it up in some sort of warped morality. People practicing Islam are deceived while secularist are often straight out dishonest. I suppose the worshiping of their high priests such as Dawkins gives them some false comfort.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 11:07:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WOW....

This apprently drugged and braindamaged author says:

The idea that you can brand members of a religion as “a problem”, because of the fact of their religious faith, is a monstrous negation of humanity.

Yet that is what increasing numbers of non-Muslims are doing to the great religion of Islam.

MEIN KAMPF IS HEREBY REHABILITATED.... because while it is not a religion.. (though it may as well be as it contains the dogma on which the holocaust was based)

Now.. every person wearing swastika's and chanting about the glory of the Aryan race is also most welcome at Mr Laidlaws home... I guess.

ONE POINT... of what he says is worth noting.. "members of a religion"
yes..I have to agree that it is not right to brand all 'members' of a religion a problem.. any more than to brand all Catholics as paedophiles because some of their priests molested children.

THE IMPORTANT THING.. is to look at whether the doctrinal foundations of the Catholic faith can SUPPORT such behavior.. and if they DO..then we can then brand that FAITH.. in total.. as a sad and disgusting bunch of shite.

Fortunately for all Catholics and Protestants.. no such justification can be found in the Bible.

Obviously, the serious enquirer will ask "But what about Islam" ?

Then, they would (if they are honest and serious) make an examination of the founder and policies of that faith, and form conclusions based on that balanced research.

On that basis they would be right to conclude as follows:

1/ "The religion is a dark manifestation of evil" or
2/ "The religion is a shining light of tolerance and peace" or
3/ "The majority of it's followers do not actually follow its teachings"

etc.. according to where the evidence leads the serious, unbiased and balanced enquirer :)
Posted by Polycarp, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 11:23:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with a lot of this article and would embellish rather that critique. For George W Bush and the neocons democracy has morphed into being part and parcel of Christianity. That is why there is an evangelical move to spread democracy, especially to Islamic countries. But democracy is not a part of Christianity, it may have developed from a Christian background that recognised that each person bears the image of God, but the idea that government should be informed by every adult individual is not a Christian idea. There is no reason that a strong man or a monarch or a council of elders could not govern with justice. The examples that we have of corruption and nepotism are not a necessary addendum to such rule.

Yes, Islam is incompatible with liberal democracy as it is with Christianity. I would defend Christianity but not liberal democracy.

I always tend to go to sleep when people talk of interfaith dialogue. The idea is that if we understand each other all will be right. But, in the case of Islam and Christianity there are insuperable barriers to this happening because the two religions are so different. The only way that interfaith dialogue could bear any fruit is for each side to attempt to convert the other to their point of view. Then we would have a heartfelt and muscular interaction. Otherwise we are left trying to find points of agreement and between Islam and Christianity and there are few.

Labelling of any individual robs them of their humanity. Behind the label is a human identity and the things we share as human individuals easily overwhelms differences in religion, sexual orientation, race, gender etc. I would be willing to argue the point between Christianity and Islam but could only do so in the constant recognition that I do not oppose a person but a set of beliefs.

Peter Sellick
Posted by Sells, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 11:31:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Does not Christianity claim to be the basis of Dempcracy in the west.

I personnally do not believe this is true but what is the difference from the east claiming that Democracy be based on their religion.

I am under the impression that Democracy as a way to govern people came into being long before either of these religions.

Unless I am mistaken, Democracy is govermment ot the people by the people. I fail to see what religion has to do with it.

Democracies should represent the cultures, needs and way of life of the people they represent.
Posted by Flo, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 12:33:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Polycarp,

I think you're being a little one-eyed.

1/ "The religion is a dark manifestation of evil" or
2/ "The religion is a shining light of tolerance and peace" or
3/ "The majority of it's followers do not actually follow its
teachings"

I think you could apply these three points to the bible as well. At the end of the day it's all in the interpretation, and whose interpretation you feel is correct. That's why Christianity has so many different branches and has had similar problems to those you are suggesting with Islam. People have used it as a justification for war, for repressive government etc, as well as a tool for carrying many wonderful acts of charity and compassion.
Posted by Phil Matimein, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 1:01:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Religion is far more than an idea. It's a tax evasion scheme designed to take money from it's followers and make them into political servants. You cannot question religious teachings, especially those most powerful, if you yourself are religious. This is because that act deprives you of membership to that religion or makes you an outcast, which both cause the person doing so to lose influence.
Posted by Steel, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 1:18:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with the first sentence, however there are no "great religions" just widespread superstitions of various degrees of lunacy and danger to civilised society. What other democracies are there, apart from the Western model?
Posted by mac, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 4:09:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jon J
>> This is the problem with religion: once you grant people a licence to behave irrationally you can no longer safely criticise or bring sanctions against them for doing so. Nor can you consistently recommend logical decision making and rational behaviour. <<

This is the problem with secularism: once you grant people a licence to behave immorally you can no longer safely criticise or bring sanctions against them for doing so. Nor can you consistently recommend ethical decision making and moral behaviour.

Unless The West stops tearing itself apart by statements like these - Christians are irrational, atheists are immoral - its demise, not only in the demographic but also in the cultural meaning of the word, seems to be inevitable.

Sells,
I agree, except that interfaith dialogue is to my understanding exactly "trying to find points of agreement between Islam and Christianity" even if there are only few, certainly much fewer than in the ecumenical dialogue between various versions of Christianity. Nevertheless, I think both are worthwhile exercises in tolerance, if nothing else.

The same as Enlightenment was a worthwhile correction to Christianity, as much as it was repudiated at the beginning (and still is by some zealots). It could become an impediment to the cultural acceptability to non-Western civilisations, only if/when this correction turns itself into an "Ersatzreligion" on its own.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 7:17:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

"This is the problem with secularism: once you grant people a licence to behave immorally you can no longer safely criticise or bring sanctions against them for doing so. Nor can you consistently recommend ethical decision making and moral behaviour."

What is 'immoral behaviour' exactly? Is it acting against the dictates of your god? But how do we know you have the right god, when there are so many to choose from? Secular rationalists try and act in a way that is empirically likely to produce the desired results. The result is science, civilisation, tolerance and billions of people lifted out of poverty and sickness. Sometimes we get it wrong, so we make a note of it and don't do it that way again. Christians pray, and it doesn't work, so they DO do it again. And again. And again. Isn't that the definition of neurosis?
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 8:41:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jon J,

You object to a sentence that I do not necessarily agree with, it is just a paraphrase of your own sweeping statement.

You also pose a few questions that seem to suggest that you have a somewhat simplified understanding of philosophy of religion and philosophy of science, and what these two realms of human understanding and experience are all about.

One needs to know some non-trivial mathematics to be humble about what science, notably physics and cosmology, can or cannot understand, and probably one needs to have had some kind “limit experience“ (as psychologists call it) to be humble about what religion can or cannot provide.

If you are seriously interested in these kind of questions may I suggest for instance a recent paper, easy to understand (unfortunately, not freely available on the Web) that I also recommended on another thread a couple of days ago: “Variety in Mysticism and Parallels with Science” (Theology and Science, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2008) by V.V. Raman, a Hindu physicist.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 11:01:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George
Your sentence about secularism was not a paraphrase of anything John J wrote - look it up if you don't know what it means. Perhaps you meant parody, but it isn't even that.
Posted by Candide, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 11:40:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry but I lost you at "...the great religion of Islam"
Posted by hadz, Thursday, 14 August 2008 9:56:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John J writes

'Secular rationalists try and act in a way that is empirically likely to produce the desired results'

That is exactly why the end justifies the means for Secularist. They often act without a conscience. We see how callously they murder the unborn. But of course they can say the woman had the choice! Time and time again secularist 'rationalize' any despicable action that gets them their little bit of pleasure.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 14 August 2008 10:04:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Sorry but I lost you at "...the great religion of Islam"
Posted by hadz

Islam is an emulation of medevial european christianity - that is the reason Europe is silent of Islamic behaviour: it leads directly to the racist and muderous doctrines of medevial Europe: what difference between 'DOOMED TO HELL IF YOU DON'T CHANT IN JC' - and 'NO GOD WITHOUT MOHAMMED'?

The term religion is so disdained today because of the chaos to humanity by Christianity and Islam. These religions emerged when they assumed ownership of the Jewish bible, nation and religion - which was 2000 years older than them, and when they had no experience of that scriptures or laws; they held as gospel only what they could connected with the Gospels, the rest was seen as irrelevent. But neither gave the world a sngle law - all world accepted laws come from the OT.

Both these religions got up when they assumed Israel was dead after the war with Rome. Both were wrong - both contradict each other in their doctrines and description of factual history - nether have given the world a single new law, concept or message. All we have is 'belief' and the names of Messengers - but no message other than chaos.

One of them destroyed Jerusalem, erected a church on its temple site, and dumped the name palestine on that nation - and today accuses that same peoples of genociding the Pretend Pals - after fastediously barring thre return of jews for 2000 years. The other destroyed the church and erected a mosque on that site, assumed the European installed name of Palestinians to them [in the 60's], then went on to deny the Gospels's resurrection doctrine. Chaos comes from two King Kongs stalking humanity today - with none to take them to task.
Posted by IamJoseph, Thursday, 14 August 2008 3:04:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CHAOS..

If anyone rejected any of the contradictions of the two king kongs - or sided with either one - or done nothing but followed their own predating beliefs - they would be deemed evil. Such chaos is not seen outside the christian-islamic realms: Buddhists, Hindu, and even Athiests do not make such contradicting and deathly demands - while having no substance when they are examined.

'WE WILL NEVER SUPPORT THE RETURN OF THE JEWS TO *THEIR HOMELAND* - BECAUSE THEY REJECTED JESUS' - A Genocidal Decree from Pope Not So Pious.

'WE CALL FOR THE UTTER DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL - WE WILL DRIVE EVERY JEW INTO A SEA OF BLOOD' - Egyptian President Nasser against a UN Re-established state which all Islamic states voted in the UN Motion, and when no Pretend Paslestinians existed, and all the lands demanded today were in Arab hands.

I got lost when European christianity was not sited alongside Islam. Europe speaks with a double tongue, touting security of Israel - after inventing its Pretend Pal lie and while attaching a deathly 3-state lie, while calling it a 2-state for peace:

'IT WILL BE AN HISTORIC COMPROMISE TO GRANT TWO STATES IN PALESTINE - ONE FOR THE JEWS AND ONE FOR THE ARABS' - Churchill.

Truth is - the creation of Jordan was a great crime, perpertrated when the jews were at their most helpless. It is also the mark when briton lost her prefix of 'GREAT' and rust the world into chaos.
Posted by IamJoseph, Thursday, 14 August 2008 3:05:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anyone who spends some time studying the foundational doctrines of Islam -- the Qur'an, the hadiths and reads even a little of the Sirat Rasool Allah, will discover to their horror, that Islam as a political system is irreconcilably hostile to non-Muslims and totalitarian in nature. And it seeks the final conversion of all non-Muslims, by force if necessary of people of the book (Jews and Christians) and the outright slaughter of Hindus, Buddhists and other 'polytheists'. Mohammad may have been a brilliant warlord, but sadly he was also a murderer, rapist, pedophile, torturer and liar. He broke treaties, massacred tribes of Jews and ordered the assasination of his critics. These historical facts are starting to permeate Western consciousness. Muslims can't hide these horrible events -- they are there in the Islamic scriptures for all to read.
Posted by jewcat, Thursday, 14 August 2008 3:52:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner, Some day's it's just not worth chewing through your restraints is it?
Your comments aren’t even close to being accurate or refect reality.

IamJoseph.
Your point was lost in the inaccuracies.Just a few points to consider.

1/ Medieval period didn’t start until several hundred years after Islam.

2 / Have you heard of Context? Pope Pious the what said that? And under what circumstances?

3/ Pres Nasser Has been dead for over 20 years he made that statement before’67 war (I think). There has been a peace treaty or two since then. Again the Context defines the quote.

4/ Churchill said that in the at least 60 years ago, come on! Apart from him being the architect of the Gallipoli campaign, the man that authorized breaking radio silence to get the Lusitania sunk in order to get involve the Americans. The man that was prepared to sacrifice Australia to defend ‘mother England’. Denying us the troop ships to bring our soldiers home. Then diverted the ships and men to Malaya where they were killed or captured. Who cares what he thought.

5/The origins of Zionism go back to 1800’s in Russia and was heavily influenced by European nationalist thinking of the time.

6/Jordan was created well after the Jews had started to migrate to Palestine. So your point about "when they were at their most helpless" is supposed to mean.

7/Jordan is the peace maker in the area.

8/ Syria lost territory to Israel in the 67 war. They are hostile to Israel.

Your grasp on Middle Eastern history appears some what tenuous. I recommend you read historian other than those who are trying to create a National (fictional) narrative. (i.e. official Israeli line)
Posted by examinator, Thursday, 14 August 2008 4:14:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think most Australians would agree that the following should be included in any minimal definition of democracy.

--The right to practise any religion or no religion. This specifically includes the right to evangelise for any religion or for atheism / agnosticism.

--Equality before the law regardless of race, colour, creed, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. This specifically includes the right to be openly homosexual. It also means that the state does not favour one religion over another.

--Habeas corpus*

--The right to examine critically any belief system, theory, ideology or political or religious agenda. This specifically includes the right to subject belief systems, theories etc to critique, analysis, satire and scorn. The critic should be under no obligation to adhere to anybody's ideas of fairness. Nor should the critic be obliged to consider the feeling of adherents of any belief system.

--The ability to bring about peaceable regime change – ballots rather than bullets. This includes the right to campaign openly and without fear for political parties and agenda.

Now:

--Would Mr. Laidlaw and those who think like him tell me which of these rights they would like to see abridged.

--How is Islam, or any other religion, compatible with these rights?

The truth is that democracy and freedom rose IN OPPOSITION TO RELIGION.

The difference between the West and Dar-ul-Islam is not that the former was once largely Christian while the latter was Muslim. The difference is that the West allowed secularism while, in Dar-ul-Islam, secularism was beaten down.

So far as I can see NO religion is compatible with democracy.

However Buddhism and Christianity have largely learned to live with democracy.

Islam mostly has not.

Hinduism is somewhere in the middle.

Laidlaw is welcome to live in an "Islamic democracy" (so-called) if he chooses. I think most Australians would prefer SECULAR democracy.

Will we be able to continue with our SECULAR democracy if Islam gains significant influence here? I doubt it.

*This right has been sadly curtailed of late.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 14 August 2008 5:44:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is interesting to note that in the UK, Sharia law, in Islamic democracy, and is openly understood as being practiced freely in communities in the UK, has removed "polygamy rights" to those Muslims intending to marry.

In Australia some profile Muslim leaders have outlined an argument for, polygamy rights.

I wonder if this means that all Islamic marriages under Sharia law, will have to be re-done in the UK and back dated?

I think this observation should be the other way round, Religion is an "expression" and Democracy is an "idea".

An "expression" can be less impressive, on a whole population, than an "idea".
Posted by Suebdootwo, Thursday, 14 August 2008 6:57:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
YES Phil religion is a very good tax evasion check out a particular Australian cereal company raking it in that are affiliated with a church have you ever seen the Benny Hinn show to see what 'religions' are up to I'm not sure if this is comedy or tragedy? Maybe both. I'm not completely anti everything but I see so much hypocrisy coming out of religions it puts me off. The media also likes to stir the pot and the sheep follow in their thousands. Bleeting brain dead peaces of meat. OOps forgot sheep aren;t stupid it's humans.
Posted by kensho, Friday, 15 August 2008 12:08:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jewcat,

Even I am sometimes astounded by just how Jew obsessed are Muslims.

Consider this:

There has long been a controversy in Muslim circles about the start of months. Will astronomical calculations do or must there be an actual sighting of the crescent moon? Till now the prevailing view has been that there must be an actual sighting. Astronomical calculations won't cut it.

However two years ago the Fiqh Council of North America broke ranks. It announced the date for the start of Ramadan based on astronomical calculations rather than actual sightings of the new moon. This caused a furore in traditional Muslim circles.

I am passionately interested in the history of science so I asked a Muslim acquaintance for a reference. I wanted to understand the issues.

He directed me to the IslamOnline website.

The IslamOnline website carried the imprimatur of Yusuf Al-Qaradawi. Qaradawi ranked third in a Prospect Magazine / Foreign Policy poll on who are the world's most important public intellectuals. IslamOnline is arguably the premier English Islamic website.

Here is a link to the relevant article:

http://www.islamonline.net/English/Living_Shariah/ContemporaryIssues/ScientificDomain/2006/10/01.SHTML

The article contains the following gems.

"The mainstream scholars of Shari`ah agree that using calculations in determining the new moon is forbidden. …Only a group from the posterity, out of ignorance, has indulged themselves in that. This is basically changing the deen of Allah by misleading people and BY FOLLOWING THE MISGUIDANCE OF THE JEWS IN THIS MATTER. (Vol. 6, 590)

Here Ibn Taymiyyah seemed to be referring to the Jewish rabbinical council's decision to adopt astronomical calculations as the authentic source of confirming the Jewish lunar months.

AND


"… He [Muhammad]…intentionally stopped the Muslims FROM IMITATING THE JEWS by putting a stop to the use of calculations in the matter of confirming Muslim months.


(Emphases added)

21st Century Muslim 'scholars' are using "not imitating Jews" as a reason for refraining from using astronomical calculations to determine the start of Ramadan.

THIS IS BEYOND BIZARRE.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 15 August 2008 12:23:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
StevenImeyer,
Sadly your imprecision in what you write defeats your point.

1. During the western dark ages civilization (science, art, law, medicine, poetry, philosophy etc) was kept alive and advanced by Islamic nations.

2. In fact they had University towns.

3. Moorish Spain had Jews, Christians etc all living together and was able to partake in government.

4. Demographics don't support your argument. Population projections show that at the current birth rates the population of England will be prominently Muslim in the year 3200, and about the same here. Holland will become Muslim in about 500 years. That ignores the factor that 2nd and 3rd generation minorities usually tend to adopt the dominant cultures identity rather than that of their antecedents. Personally I doubt that I or the human race will be around then. Take your pick which doomsday scenario you wish.

5. No nation in the world has ever practised true democracy. You confuse democracy with rights. Democracy is a method of government not human rights. i.e. Greece who invented democracy had slaves and were religiously intolerant. So who's to say which perversion is best?

If you want something to worry about ask yourself how come non living non voting entities (corporations) have so much anti human influence in our democratic government?

By your reasoning the Muslims in Australia aren’t really faux Muslims in that they happily co-exist in our democracy.
In every group there are ratbags with axes to grind.
Posted by examinator, Friday, 15 August 2008 12:50:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Candide,
Touché ... OK, not paraphrase but metaphrase, parallel, mimic or what you like. Anyhow, the juxtaposition of the two sentences (the original one and the artificial one, obtained by cutting and pasting just a couple of words) together with the following reference to the two extremist and intolerant positions, should have made it clear what I had in mind.
Posted by George, Friday, 15 August 2008 12:57:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"IamJoseph.
Your point was lost in the inaccuracies.Just a few points to consider.

1/ Medieval period didn’t start until several hundred years after Islam."

The fulcrum point is the term medevial and European Christianity's early history, as opposed its dating. The medevial factors kick in with the very take over of the church from Rome, elevating the premise of heresy far more than did Rome - the figures of murdered peoples is not inaccurate for those who know their history.

"2 / Have you heard of Context? Pope Pious the what said that? And under what circumstances?"

The circumstances are that when a religion appears, it does not persecute exiled peoples for their beliefs, and also barr them from returning to their own land. Pope Pious' actions led to the holocaust and many being killed before that time - while being witness Europe stole the land from Jews. That Pope was lieing from every cell in his being, impudently, and in reverse mode what a Godly priest should have done.

"3/ Pres Nasser Has been dead for over 20 years he made that statement before’67 war (I think). There has been a peace treaty or two since then. Again the Context defines the quote."

Nasser emulated the same doctrine of those regimes who attacked Israel in '48, making a mockery of the UN's lack of Resolution - thus the Arabs became emboldened to repeat their crimes.

"4/ Churchill said that in the at least 60 years ago, come on!"

It does not alter the crime of it, but puts PAID to Briton's honor and pledges before the world. Churchill was the real Judas - for 30 barrels of oil.

"5/The origins of Zionism go back to 1800’s in Russia and was heavily influenced by European nationalist thinking of the time. "

Not so. The re-establishment of Israel came 150 years before and from America. Briton reluctantly issued the Balfour via American pressure.
Posted by IamJoseph, Friday, 15 August 2008 3:48:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"6/Jordan was created well after the Jews had started to migrate to Palestine. So your point about "when they were at their most helpless" is supposed to mean."

The point is, Jordan was a corruption of the Balfour, and was never required, specially not handed over to a Saudi family. In fact, the Brits had no right to establish so many Arab states, then carve out 60% of the land allocated to the jews. Briton is also lieing when she again calls another 3rd division as a 2-state. Briton did similar in India - a corruption of the Arab pressure. Now Londonistan is being taken over by that same weapon.

"7/Jordan is the peace maker in the area."

Jordan is Israel's worst enemy and the cause of all the wars today - not only via her creation, but also by violating the only condition of her creation: to house the arabs in Palestine. Jordan barred 30% of the arabs - to create a sore unto Israel. Jordan erected signs before '67: DOGS & JEWS FORBIDDEN IN EAST JERUSALEM. Jordan should be dismantled and the Brits taken to task - if you want to save that nation's name and future.

"8/ Syria lost territory to Israel in the 67 war. They are hostile to Israel. "

That's an incomplete statement. Syria five times attacked Israel, in violation of the UN. Land lost in such a case is not returnable.

"Your grasp on Middle Eastern history appears some what tenuous. "

I don't think so. Check your history books again.
Posted by IamJoseph, Friday, 15 August 2008 3:49:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
IamJoseph.
I'm intrigued which sources of information please send me the titles so I can read them.
The Haskala (Jewish awakening) took place after 1770 from in Germany subsequent to Rising of European nationalism of the time.

After particularly bad Pogrom (anti Jewish riot in the Russian Empire) early 1882. The Ottoman Empire allowed some Jews to migrate to Palestine. The 1st wave of migration (aliyah) lasted until 1900 and was funded by baron de Rothschild. However most Jews migrated to the US. But it wasn't until Theodor Herzel (1860-1904) called the first Zionist Congress was in 1897 that it became a organized movement.. !903 Herzel negotiated with British Colonial Secretary, Joseph Chamberlain over Uganda being the Jewish homeland but his insistence on Palestine split the Zionists. Where you get the 1660 start is a mystery.

I would like to read the sources for your assertions your answers (such as they were) seem to have a muddled time line.
Your views seem more influenced by Zionist (now Israeli mythology and propaganda.) than facts.
Islam started about 600 AD the (Dark ages 400 -1000ish AD.) during this period Islam was the keepers of civilization science, maths, philosophy etc.

Pope Pius XII 1939-1953 did not cause the holocaust. He just didn’t condemn it.
Posted by examinator, Saturday, 16 August 2008 12:24:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Where you get the 1660 start is a mystery."

US Christian Zionists discover Israel
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4950.htm

The first lobbying effort on behalf of a Jewish state in Palestine was not organized or initiated by Jews. It occurred in 1891, when a popular fundamentalist Christian writer and lay-preacher, William E. Blackstone, organized a national campaign to appeal to the then-president of the United States, Benjamin Harrison, to support the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.

John Adams embraces
a Jewish homeland
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/adams_jews.htm

In an 1808 letter criticizing the depiction of Jews by the French Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire, Adams expressed his respect for ancient Jewry. Adams wrote of Voltaire, "How is it possible [that he] should represent the Hebrews in such a contemptible light? They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their Empire were but a Bauble in comparison of the Jews. They have given religion to three quarters of the Globe and have influenced the affairs of Mankind more, and more happily, than any other Nation ancient or modern. For I really wish the Jews again in Judea an independent nation."
Posted by IamJoseph, Saturday, 16 August 2008 4:03:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"during this period Islam was the keepers of civilization science, maths, philosophy etc."

How so? While all nations contribute to humanity, maths was hardly a muslim premise [the first scientific cencus, in the millions, is in the book of Exodus - 2000 years before Islam or Arabic writings emerged. You have not regarded that when Islam emerged, the jews were in Arab lands and embedded within the core of Islamic administrations and institutions - but when the Jews were expelled, the vacuum is evident. The Quran itself is a document which lifted off the OT: the pre-islamic arabs had no writings or monotheistic beliefs till Islam emerged, and when Jews were in their midst throughout that time. Connect the dots.

"Pope Pius XII 1939-1953 did not cause the holocaust. He just didn’t condemn it."

The vatican has already admitted the Holocaust was a 'direct' result of medevial and later European christianity. There are passages in Mathew and Luther's writings which eerilly resemble Nazism and Hitler's Mein Kampf. Pope Pious did not just refrain from condemnation, but actively negated the return of the Jews to their homeland, for the vilest of reasons:

'WE WILL NEVER SUPPORT THE RETURN OF THE JEWS TO THEIR HOMELAND BECAUSE THEY REJECTED JESUS'

Should Europe be cleansed of christians for rejecting Mohammed?
Posted by IamJoseph, Saturday, 16 August 2008 4:16:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examinator

I want to thank you for your post of 15 August 2008 at 12:50:57 AM.

It caused me to have a "Eureka moment." In fact I've been thinking about your post ever since I read it later that morning.

What follows is NOT intended as sarcasm. I am TRULY grateful to you for forcing me to see what has been in front of my eyes for decades.

Your post illustrates the truth of the adage that the VICTORS WRITE THE HISTORY BOOKS.

More, your post demonstrates that Islam has almost succeeded in doing to the great PAGAN civilisations that preceded it what Europeans have tried to do to Aborigines – to write them and their achievements out of history.

The reality, examinator, is this:

--Islam conquered a region that had a long tradition of scientific inquiry.

--Islam slowly strangled that PRE-Islamic scientific culture

--Examples of "Islamic science" are actually the fruits of the tail-end of that PRE-Islamic culture before Islam succeeded in extinguishing it.

--For Islam to claim credit for the achievements of these "Muslim" scientists is as preposterous as Catholicism claiming credit for Galileo's achievements simply because Galileo was born in a Catholic country and was a practising Catholic.

--If anything Islam has been even more antipathetic to scientific enquiry than the Catholic Church.

--Islamic civilisation did preserve certain ancient texts but did little to advance them. By the time these were recovered by European scholars, European science had mostly surpassed what was in them. With the exception of the Almagest they did little to advance European science.

Examinator,

I do not expect to convince you of all this with one post in OLO. The MYTH of a Muslim golden age is too deeply embedded in our culture.

But you have inspired me to start a retirement project. I am going to set up a website that explores the great achievements of Dar-ul-Islam BEFORE Islam.

It will also include the almost forgotten achievements of HINDU mathematic. The Hindus, not the Arabs, invented zero and much else.

THANK YOU EXAMINATOR!
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Sunday, 17 August 2008 11:03:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
IamJoseph,
The sites you supplied are conspiracy opinion sites and interpretive.
The article talk about the 1800's (I said that) not 1660 as your response claims.
I said Zionism as coherent ORGANIZATION with clear pan Jewish ideals didn't get off the ground until 1897.
It is Jewish propaganda that the Balfour Declaration promised Jews anything more than a home. It didn’t promise a state. Therefore all that which you argue from there is flawed logic. Ergo the Jews weren’t betrayed…read it OBJECTIVELY (then read Lloyd George’s PM at the time intentions.).

What Pope Pius XII said or the Vatican believed in 1938-53 is irrelevant today.
The Holocaust was a logical consequence of Nazism. Humans always seek scapegoats for what they don’t understand.

Certainly the Jews crucifying Jesus and therefore never forgiven is irrelevant today as there has been at least one Encyclical or Papal Bull that refutes that since then. You aren’t responsible personally for the ‘stolen generation’ any more than today’s Germans are responsible for the Holocaust?

Wise saying “no matter how well you nurse a grudge it’ll never get better”.

Advice:
• Don’t take your info solely from the net as its credibility maybe suspect.
• Good reasoning is to read all the info with an open mind not cherry pick for facts to prove your prejudicial assumption.
• You should be wary of quoting from previous generations as justification for today’s actions.

BTW. This is a long way from the seed article; it is NOT about the Jewish situation neither do I take side in that debate.
My point of writing is NOT to change your mind it was to glean information and point out that your facts are incomplete and your reasoning is suspect.
I was right you are a religious tragic and a mislead one at that.
FYO I have a Jewish daughter… I am not anti-Semitic.
We have both made our points….END
Posted by examinator, Sunday, 17 August 2008 11:46:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Two ideas:

1: Organised religion is better than the pseudo-religions that have come to replace them. For example, Consumerism, Socialism, Feminism...

The damage done by the zealots of these replacement religions is terrible. The theft of innocent children from their fathers by twisted the feminist law court (Family Law Court) is destroying the opportunities of a whole generation of children.

2: Organised religions that have lasted thousands of years generally do good (with very few exceptions, for example sexual abuse of boys by very small percentage of few rotten-apples in the priesthood).

Wars are *not* caused by organised religion. Religion is used as the excuse for profit. Even the Crusades were not about religion, it wa about plundering the waelth of the aging middle east empires. FOr example one of the major Crusades ended up plundering Christian Constaninople, and left the infidels in peace! Profiteering, hiding behind religion.

3: The worries about Muslims is driven by the demographic fact that for every 'christian' baby, there are about 10 Mulsim babies being born in this world. The rise in prominence of Muslim concerns is driven by the rapid rise in muslim populations.

The other side of this is the genocide that western nations are committing against themselves through failing fertility. Overly-powerful nasty feminism has created an imbalance between men and women. So many middle-class men refuse to commit, and refuse to become fathers, for fear of the divorce courts stealing them. Vindictive feminism has created a "marriage strike" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_strike
Posted by partTimeParent, Monday, 18 August 2008 11:11:43 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“The sites you supplied are conspiracy opinion sites and interpretive.”

No sir – I can post you numerous other sources or you can google the net to affirm my posts are 'factual history', not propaganda. My point was that America first acknowledged Israel’s rights, while Europe was in its denial, until Briton was prevailed upon. You are rejecting proof and calling it propaganda.

“I said Zionism as coherent ORGANIZATION with clear pan Jewish ideals didn't get off the ground until 1897.”

Zion and Zionism are ancient symbols, same as the star of david Israel uses. Herzl merely used the term in 1897 and made the return a political one, finally prevailing over Europe’s horrific persecutions and falsehoods of the Jews.

“It is Jewish propaganda that the Balfour Declaration promised Jews anything more than a home. It didn’t promise a state.”

Your wrong again. The state was not Briton’s right but the right of Jews to return from the land Europe stole, then barred their return: Briton entered thr scene with a Mandate attached - which it corrupted before the world, when Jews were at their most helpless. Israel returned despite Europe’s terrible deeds. And the Balfour did grant state rights - your twisting of this is telling: Jordan could not be created [as a State!} unless the Balfour was ratified, and this was done by Briton and the UN, naming two 'STATES' in Palestine where there should have been one. There were no Palestinians then till Arafat shook hands with the Pope.

"IT WILL BE AN HISTORIC COMPROMISE TO GRANT TWO STATES IN PALESTINE - ONE FOR THE JEWS AND ONE FOR THE ARABS" - Churchill.
Posted by IamJoseph, Monday, 18 August 2008 11:51:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think your offering, partTimeParent, should become the template for all Christian responses on this thread.

It encapsulates the spectrum of present-day Christian emotions, from smugness ("Organised religion is better..."), through denial ("Wars are *not* caused by organised religion...") to fear ("for every 'christian' baby, there are about 10 Mulsim babies..").

Each one of these is, of course, simply knee-jerk nonsense.

>>Organised religion is better than the pseudo-religions that have come to replace them. For example, Consumerism, Socialism, Feminism...<<

These are not religions, partTimeParent.

Christianity and -isms are not mutually exclusive. Our very own PM is both Christian, and Socialist.

Europe has even seen a Christian Social Workers’ Political Party. Unfortunately they were also rather anti-Semitic.

Further, I'm not sure how you can say this with a straight face:

>>The theft of innocent children from their fathers by twisted [sic] the feminist law court...<<

...when christian missionaries were primarily responsible for the widespread relocation of children known as "the stolen generation".

>>Even the Crusades were not about religion,..<<

Hmmmm. I think I need a little more than just your word for that.

>>The rise in prominence of Muslim concerns is driven by the rapid rise in muslim populations<<

This may be true, but you fail to say i) what is the problem with Muslims procreating or ii) what the world can do about it. Especially given the ever-present issue of finite resources.

I suspect you might have a more personal agenda, to do with your family situation, or lack of it, which would explain the lack of logic in this post.

However, you do hit all the usual Christian buttons...
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 18 August 2008 11:59:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“What Pope Pius XII said or the Vatican believed in 1938-53 is irrelevant today. “

Why is that so? – it was a criminal nazi-like, racist deed, and that Pope should not be beatified – that makes a mockery of that title. Goals of Genocide, by claiming IN JESUS, does not call for Beaitification.

“The Holocaust was a logical consequence of Nazism."

Nazism was hardly logical, and admitted as caused by Christian doctrines – the scapegoat syndrome is not mine, but of Europe’s history.

“Certainly the Jews crucifying Jesus and therefore never forgiven is irrelevant today”

What about the doctrine Jews are born of apes, and what's the difference from the Gospel doctrine? I think the Pope and those doctrines were wrong, and historically only smacks of its antithesis. Jesus was killed by Europe – as were millions of Jesus’ kinfolk – and all on the charge of Heresy: JC never stood a hope of surviving with this decree hovering, and Rome needed no prompts from the Jews. Roman Catholicism then went on to massacre more than Rome with its own heresy & deicide [sic] charge.

Not only is the charge absolutely without a shred of evidence outside of the Gospels, it cannot be evidenced even in Roman archives: when have you seen Jews kill and snigger over one man’s death outside of the Gospels?

Your bigger problem is Islam, which emerged in the same space-time, totally contradicting the Gospels, claiming Jesus was not crucified and lived and died in Egypt. Whatever the case – it is a fact that Jewish writings is perhaps the most vindicated in history, while the reverse can be said of the Gospels - its not an historical document, and self declared as such - it is a 'BELIEF' and one which contradicts every historical truth.

Deicide, luke the blood libels and the Protocols, is one desperate claim – because there is nothing in the bag. Jesus was not a Christian and Europe used his name to commit the greatest attrocities in recorded history. Thus the surviving witness must be wiped off the map. Understandable.
Posted by IamJoseph, Monday, 18 August 2008 12:05:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can someone PLEASE take this ostrich . . . the author of the article . . . pull his pathetic pacifist head out of the sand . . . and feed him to Australia's crocodiles?

He's not only an imbecile.

He's BLIND.
Posted by sonofeire, Monday, 18 August 2008 4:43:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy